Bad cut, precautionary cast on leg but all indications he's OK- you can listen to him on Radio Rovers.

REVENGE OF THE ROVERS! Oh I'm so happy- this is fantastic. HOW I HATE THE MANCS!!!! What to say? We were not really in it until that magnificent free kick by MGP and Bentley tucked away a really tricky rebound. Saha's goal saw 2 Mancs offside but what oh- the Ref had already given the Mancs six decisions incorrectly. Thankfully Rio was in a generous mood and well done that linesman spotting a very clear deliberate movement of hands to ball. And how cool was Lucas Neill. Then ecstasy with an absolutely sublime build up and perfect technique from Bentley. GOOD CROWD- that was the perfect advert for the Rovers. No more sub 20K crowds from here on in, please! Step forwards Andy Todd: stupidity on the goal line and then kick a guy going nowhere to set up the freekick for the Mancs 3rd. But after that we ran the show, even before Rio got sent off (that guy is no way an England player- never has been IMO). Kuqi- well the kindest thing I can say is that we won't be seeing him for a long while. Woohoo, we beat the Mancs with our top three forwards all out. Now let's take their Champs League place off them.

Stop the vote now then relaunch it tonight using the Programme numbers with plenty of announcements that the "old" vote has been counted and the new votes will be added to the votes according to design voted for.

I would think Sparky has achieved some modicom of restoration in the eyes of Liverpool supporters for that comment... Great one Mr Fleming- keep them coming!

For those interested, Man United supporters have done the following analysis of one very sick-looking football club. Makes my look at Rovers easy in comparison. One point the MUST don't raise is that the purchases of Evra and Vidic very nearly bring the Mancs' spending to the £12m annual limit the hedge fund allows for net transfer out-goings. No wonder they offered £2m + Saha for Defoe last night- it was all they were allowed without breaking their covenant. From UWS: United's Debts By Andy Date: 1/2/2006 MUST looks closely at David Gill's public statements on the debt hanging over our club. "Much of the press reporting of the recent MU results for the financial year 2004/5 has quoted the figure of £46m of profit for the club. This spin is misleading - the £46m quoted is actually the EBITDA number, the cash operating profit before taking into account interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation costs. (A Rovers comparison- our EBITDA number was over £9m profit). The net profit, after deducting those costs, was actually £12m, down £15m from £27m the year before. After tax and dividends, this number comes down to £4.4m of post-tax profit. Gill has followed up the results announcement by making certain statements about the debt which in our view do not stack up. These are his statements, followed by our comment. "There are two elements to the debt, the hedge funds and the senior debt," explained Gill. "The hedge funds have no security over the club and no influence over it either. Yes, they have to be repaid but that is something the Glazers will do from their own resources or refinancing plans in time." This is true up to a point but misleading in what is leaves out - the hedge funds do have rights over the club and its assets and operations, according to the finance documents that Glazer had to make public during the takeover: § If MU's EBITDA (cash operating profits) for FY 2006 and 2007 do not hit £48.5m and £75.7m respectively, the funds have the right to appoint 25% of Red Football and MU's boards of directors. And if the £275m hedge fund debt (PiK) is not completely repaid by May 2010, the funds have rights of veto over all commercial and financial aspects of the club including player transfers. Plus they can force the club to be put up for sale in those circumstances. § Of course it is inconceivable that Glazer would allow this to occur, especially since interest is rolling up on the PiK at an average rate of 18% per year (first year's interest alone is £51m to May 2006). The PiK must be repaid or refinanced quickly, or Glazer risks losing his equity and possibly the club itself to the hedge funds. It is difficult to see where Glazer gets the cash to repay >£325m of PiK from his own resources this year - rumours still abound that his £272m 'equity investment' in MU was part (if not all) borrowed. So a debt refinancing is undoubtedly on the cards. This, we predict, will come in the form of either (i) a sale & leaseback of Old Trafford or (ii) using all available cash from United (and perhaps Glazer's own funds from the sale of his US businesses which are currently on the market) to repay part of the JP Morgan senior debt, perhaps taking the outstandings down to around £200m or less. Then he would extend the borrowings against club assets to (say) £500m and use the sale & leaseback proceeds or new £300m loans to repay the hedge funds. By this time next year, we believe, the total senior debt secured on United's assets will be between £450-£500m, which is the amount Glazer intended the club to borrow in his original business plan that was so roundly dismissed by the pre-takeover board (including David Gill himself) as 'damaging' to the club. [Why damaging? Because the annual debt service payments on this level of debt would be in the region of £80m!]. The ruinously expensive hedge fund debt was introduced by Glazer after this rejection in order to address the board's legitimate concerns (to avoid a Leeds-type meltdown), by appearing to take some of the debt into his own company. This was always a temporary solution and we are now heading back to Glazer's Plan A - load it all onto United. This requires saving money - for evidence of where the club's cash is going, look at the cost-cutting which has been going on (staff made redundant, players sold or loaned out, axing one reserve team etc); look at the transfer budget (two defenders yes, but no cash for a midfielder in January, despite desperate need). The hedge fund debt is undoubtedly occupying a huge amount of the Glazers time working out how to get rid of it and onsequently the hedge funds' "influence" over the club and its finances is enormous. The question has to be asked - would the Glazers sanction spending £5m or so on a midfielder in January, over and above the £12m already spent, if this could result in United failing to hit the £48.5m EBITDA target this year? We think not - it could lead to the hedge funds exercising their right to appoint directors to the board. So no midfielder, unless perhaps on loan. A clear example of hedge funds "influence" over the club? "Manchester United is supporting the senior debt, which is around £265million-£275million." Gill does not mention the separate £109m loan facilities from JP Morgan taken out by the club and highlighted in Glazer's offer document, in addition to the £265m senior debt - total JPM facilities of £374m. £18.9m of this was a bridge loan for buying out small shareholders. There was also a £50m revolving loan facility (speculation being that this was to pay Glazer's advisers fees for the takeover at around £40m or more) and a £40m capex facility to pay for the stadium expansion - the previous board had set aside cash from the club's own resources for this. Glazer's PR spinners claim that the bridge loan (£18.9m) has already been repaid and the other facilities (£90m) have not been drawn down. No evidence of this has been produced and we are entitled to assume that at least the revolver and capex debts were drawn down and are still outstanding. "People need to recognise the cost of servicing the interest on that debt is not in excess of what we were previously paying in dividends and corporation tax as a publicly quoted company". This is completely untrue and inaccurate. These are the figures for dividend and tax costs for the last two financial years, taken from United's own published accounts: 2004 - Corporation Tax = 8.6m, Dividends = 7.0m Total = £15.6m 2005 - Corporation Tax = 4.2m, Dividends = 3.4m Total = £7.6m Interest payments on the JP Morgan £265m senior debt and £90m revolver/capex facilities for the first full year (2005/6) are £30.3m, four times the dividend/tax cost for last year: £55m term loan 1 over 7 years @ LIBOR + 2.75% pa (7.35%) First year interest = £4.0m £62.5m term loan 2 over 7.5/8 years @LIBOR + 3.25% pa (7.85%) £5.0m £62.5m term loan 3 over 8.5/9 years @ LIBOR + 3.75% pa (8.35%) £5.3m £85m term loan 4 over 10 years @ LIBOR + 6.5% pa (11.10%) £9.5m £50m revolving credit over 7 years @ LIBOR + 2.75% pa (7.35%) £3.6m £40m capex facility over 7 years @ LIBOR + 2.75% pa (7.35%) £2.9m £355m total debt Total Interest £30.3m LIBOR currently stands at 4.60%. Gill will also say they no longer have to bear the cost of being a listed company - regulatory and admin. fees would have added a further approx. £2m per year, not material to Gill's argument. The debt itself is serviceable because our cash generation will improve through the expansion of the stadium and other things." Current levels of debt, maybe. But what if the refinancing increases the club's debt load to £500m? Requiring annual servicing to the tune of £80m? Where will this extra revenue come from? § New shirt sponsor - speculation is rife that united will announce a deal with UAE-based Ettihad Airways worth around £12-15m per year, an increase from Vodafone's £9m p.a. Ettihad is a company and a name that no-one has heard of, but this will not worry the Glazers who desperately need the cash and a deal which exceeds or matches the market best. The previous board rightly wanted to associate the Manchester United brand with a reputable global brand name, but it looks like the rumoured big name sponsors are not willing to pay what the Glazers are demanding. So cash needs must where the devil of £600m debt drives. § Increased TV and media revenues? Unlikely - these are expected to remain static, and could even reduce given United's early exit from the Champions' League this year and if they fail to finish higher in the Premier League (PL) than last year. § Cup runs do not produce a large amount of cash for United - gates and TV money are shared (home and away) and home gates have not been good (see below). § Expansion of the stadium will not come fully into play until next the financial year 2006/7. An additional 7,500 seats in theory gives a large revenue boost. But there are disturbing signs that the stadium expansion has come at a time when gate attendances, ticket demand and fans' ability or willingness to pay any price to watch their team have peaked at United (and throughout the PL). Attendances at United's PL games this season have been sold out as usual, but gates for cup games have drastically declined - no full houses and gates ranging from a 17-year low of 43,000 to see Barnet in the Carling Cup and culminating in a 61,000 gate for the Carling Cup semi-final against Blackburn. Even non-league Exeter in the FA Cup got a full house last season. Glazer's planned ticket price rises (trailed in the leaked business plan in the Times last June) will surely have to be reviewed, given that for all cup and some PL games, the club has had to resort to selling on the gate (unheard of for 20 years), offering half-price executive packages and emailing local schools with offers of cheap tickets for schoolkids. The mythical '40-year waiting list' for season tickets has evaporated - the club is currently offering new season tickets for the new quadrants to non-One United members - having only just managed to sell all of the 2,500 extra season tickets before this season. Fans willingness to pay higher prices and go to all games cannot be taken for granted any more. "This is a new era," said Gill. "We didn't have any debt before and now we do but I am quite comfortable about that situation." Quite right David, it is a new era - the game has changed and fans across the country are refusing to be taken for mugs anymore. And we rightly don't like debt in the huge amounts our club is now saddled with. But having received £2m from Glazer for his shares and share options, and on remuneration of £1m a year, perhaps Gill has new priorities and does not feel the need to take fans legitimate views and concerns into account. And he has done a complete about-turn himself on the matter of debt. Gill was a member of the previous board of directors which labelled Glazer's business plans 'aggressive' and 'potentially damaging' for the club. Gill was vociferous in his belief before the takeover that it would not be right for United to take on any debt at all - he made that very clear to SU/MUST members in an open meeting in August 2004. To go from that position to one where he is "comfortable" with over £600m of debt hanging over the club, beggars belief. He was either very wrong before, or playing footsie with the truth now. United fans tend to agree with his previous position - we don't want to be another Leeds, but at least that club took on debt to buy players. United's debt is actually Glazer's debt to buy our club. It serves absolutely no useful purpose in building the team, quite the opposite in fact. It imposes an obstacle to that critical objective. Sir Alex Ferguson has already admitted that we can now have a squad of no more than 19 or 20 well-paid players and can't afford to compete with Chelsea financially. The debt is seriously affecting our club on the pitch as well as off it. We strongly believe that this would never be the case under a supporter-owned club - 100% of all net profits would go to the team and the facilities, like Barcelona and Real Madrid, rather than in repaying acquisition debt. For sure, a supporter-owned United would make sure the manager could buy a player when he really needed it. MUST Board 31 January 2006

Sparky is playing mind games again. I really really really want to win this one. Time to get another one notched back against the hated cheating Mancs.

Reading between the lines at the Buccaneers.

The Baggies keeper, Kauczak (?), seems to be pretty special. If we get one or two past him we'll be OK. Quashie will be making his debut for them- that's a very smart move in the transfer market as he's the ideal midfielder to shore up a struggling side. Fortunately, their Africans are still involved in Cairo.

Just to add to the Lancastrian football congestion, Morecambe are one place outside the play-offs and with Grays in free fall don't have to do much to qualify. Stanley AND the Shrimpers in the Football League?

Top man Colin and well done that Baggie! Does that mean you can go on 606 whenever you want?

I cannot get the link to work either. Here is the Article from the Newcastler Evening Chronicle: The human side to the men in black Jan 31 2006 By John Gibson, The Evening Chronicle When Graeme Souness dramatically lost to his old club Blackburn Rovers in the last Premier League match at St James' Park it sparked great controversy and six-foot high headlines blazed in flaming red. Because not only did irate United fans stage an instant demonstration demanding the removal of Souness from office, but the winning goal was revealed to have been handballed into the net. A Geordie was thrust into the epicentre of the impending storm, a position from where he can give a unique insight into what goes on within the third team on a football field - the match officials. Rarely does such a persecuted bunch of individuals take the opportunity to allow fans to understand what is behind their judgement making. However, Ashington's Clive Oliver, a Football League referee, was the fourth official at Newcastle v Blackburn a week gone Saturday, and as such was part of the inquest into the day's huge talking point. "When Blackburn scored the talking point for us was not whether Morten Pedersen had handled the ball into the net, but whether Shefki Kuqi ought to have been booked for his celebrations," Oliver told me. "I was standing on the track watching play when Blackburn scored and there wasn't a squeak from anyone about the goal. "In fact, according to referee Howard Webb, only one Newcastle player questioned the decision, and that was Lee Bowyer. "As he ran past Bowyer said: `That was handball' but he left it at that and no one else said a word. "Bowyer had got on the wrong side of Pedersen on the goalline, if you remember, but he didn't make a fuss about the way the ball was put in the net. "Match officials work as a four-man team - we drive to a given assembly point and then take a mini bus to the ground. In this case we met at Ramside Hall. I drove past St James' Park to get there! "Anyway, on the way back to Ramside it came up on the radio that Newcastle had lost to a controversial goal. Controversial? Why? We all raised our eyebrows. "Neither Howard Webb, his two assistants, nor myself knew why. "Of course when I watched the game on Match of the Day it showed Pedersen had clearly handled the ball, but how many people in the crowd or in the Press box knew that instantly if they are truthful? "Handball had never been mentioned amongst us. What we talked about was Kuqi's celebrations. The ball had come off his shoulder as he jumped to head it, but he believed it had gone straight in and the goal was his. So did the stadium announcer. "Kuqi ran to the corner flag, pulled it out of the ground, and lifted it above his head two-handed like a weightlifter. Tino Asprilla did something similar when Newcastle played Barcelona. "The discussion was whether Kuqi should have been yellow-carded. "Obviously, Howard didn't think so and the reasons were that Kuqi went over to the Blackburn fans, though they were high above him, and not to Newcastle supporters, he didn't delay the restart, and he didn't overdo the celebrations. "We have to remember that football is an entertainment, like going to the theatre, and people like emotion. "The difference between Kuqi and Arjen Robben when he celebrated a goal for Chelsea is that he jumped the barrier to get to the crowd. That's why he got a second yellow card and was sent off. "The one point which brought deep discussion was about removing a piece of apparatus, ie the corner flag. "A few e-mails whizzed round about that, but not about any handball." Oliver knows only too well the perils of being a referee, often made the scapegoat for managers losing key games, and he defends his profession admirably and stoutly. "Of course we're just human and as such will make mistakes," said Clive. "So do the top players. They miss a sitter, strike a wayward pass, or whatever. "And in the Premier League officials are under huge scrutiny with about 16 different camera angles ready to reveal any misjudgement. "A referee has only two eyes, not 16, and can only see the action from one angle." So should new technology be used to help eradicate human error? "Yeah, I'm for it on goalline decisions but that's all," he said. "However, how precisely it would work I'm not so sure. "Football is not a stop-start game like cricket where a call for guidance can be made on any decision. Nor like rugby where a referee can call for TV to determine if the ball was grounded properly on a try. "For example, what if Newcastle were playing Sunderland and Alan Shearer, looking for his record-breaking 201st goal, claimed his shot off the crossbar was over the line before it was cleared - and Sunderland broke away to score themselves. "How do we take play back to judge Shearer's effort? And if it was a goal, how do we restart play and make a decision on Sunderland's strike? "Equally, on breaking the Newcastle goalscoring record how does the referee judge Shearer's celebrations? "Can you imagine booking him for over-celebration in front of 50,000 Geordies at St James' Park and then, if he was already on a yellow, sending him off? It would start a riot! "A referee has an extremely difficult task that he does to the very best of his ability. He doesn't cheat. He acts as he sees it." Oliver only took up refereeing at 29 years of age when a knee injury prematurely ended his playing career. "I played at Northern Alliance level only, but football has always been my life," admitted Clive. "I took the exam when I was first injured and carried the flag on the line as a means of getting fit again. "But after a second op I was warned that if I played I'd suffer later in life. I finished at the top - my last game was a cup final! I couldn't walk away from football and so my second love affair with the game began." Tonight Clive will be in charge of Sheffield Wednesday v Luton at Hillsborough - hoping for no handball goals or extravagant celebrations. ************************* Best and Worst Like any footballer Clive Oliver can remember his best and worst games, the joy and the nightmare. It happens for referees just as it does for players. Joy came in his very first Championship match last season - Derby County v Plymouth Argyle. "The game was played in front of 25,000 when the biggest crowd I'd previously faced was 11,000," said Oliver. "The managers and players had all done their homework - they knew it was my first Championship game - but instead of trying to take advantage everything went like a dream. "There was no trouble, no flashpoints, and at the end both captains, Jeff Kenna of Derby and Plymouth's Graham Coughlan, came over and we had a three-way hug on the pitch. It was spontaneous but goodness knows what the fans made of it!" If that was good, Blackpool v Bristol City last season was bad. "I awarded two penalties, one to each side, and both were strongly contested," admitted Oliver. "I had one team surrounding me as we went off at half-time and the other team doing the same at the end. I didn't ref well, I admit that. It was a massive learning curve for me." Former Scotland centre-half Colin Hendry was Blackpool's manager and Oliver has also reffed another household name, ex-Arsenal and England striker Paul Merson (left), now player-manager of Walsall. "I've had Walsall three times - twice at home and once at Hartlepool - and Merson has been a real nice fella. He's totally focused and quite quiet on the pitch. "I like to talk. Communicating is my style, it's the biggest tool I've got. Players only take five to 10 minutes to suss you out and most will play to win at all costs. If they test the referee and have to bend the rules a bit to gain advantage they'll do it. I use the talkers in the two teams to get through to the rest."

The Baggies have just signed Uruguayan defender Martinez on loan and sold Earnshaw to Norwich for £3.5m. Huckerby and Earnshaw together are going to be a tough ask for second division defences. This WBA game for us is in the MUST WIN category if we are serious about UEFA qualification. If we don't get anything out of tomorrow night, we could be in danger of losing touch with sixth place and if we get a great result a\gainst the Mancs, we can't afford to throw our advantage away.It is going to be a very tough one as the Baggies are fighting for their lives with BIG CLUB stirring and the sweetie store that is Pompey now. We should have too much for the Baggies in every department except possibly in attack (Pongolle and Bentley together?). But the Baggies have upset a few big names at the Hawthorns as well as contriving to lose to Sunderland. One thing is for certain, we can rely on Hughes getting the players' heads right for this one- something the previous management would have left as hit or miss. 1-0 or 2-1 to the Rovers. Please...

Interesting insight into the Newcastle game and the hand of Ped.

So our biggest gate this season will be less than the AVERAGE gate two seasons ago when it was 24,000. Forget about three seasons ago when it was 26,000.

On the official site, Hughes is reported as not wanting to have the fixture changed.

Winter basically says that big clubs influence who does and does not referee them. As a result, refs will favour them in order to protect their career. We clearly saw that with Poll at OT last week.

Jeff Winters' new books reveals undue influence yielded by the larger clubs. Amongst the examples he gives are him not being given a Manc game for two years after a particularly rumbustous match. Nice to read he actually preferred reffing Savage and Bellamy but hates the likes of Gary Neville and Dennis Bergkamp.

I have no idea. I am sure the Board will look at it on a case by case basis and I would imagine that Hughes has presented his targets and knows whom he can go after. It was instructive that talks opened with Tugay shortly after Petrov signed a new contract with Celtic with a £4m release clause. I would guess there would be more available if there is a sign that there is an upwards trend in home support. 18,000 Rovers supporters at Ewood tomorrow night would be a decent start- if the Mancs have sold their allocation will mean a 25,000+ gate.

Accy won 3-1 away at Exeter tonight. They are 11 points clear at the top of the Conference with a superior goal difference and a game in hand. Rovers had better get planning for Accy being back as a league club next season.

Wonderful preview. Great shame Wolves aren't even trying against the Mancs. I so much want to win this one...

No- read my posts.

The Rovers operate on a minimal cash balance given the extent of borrowings so the cash in hand was virtually unchanged. If you read through my report you will get the drift of what the club and Walker Trust is doing.

All very well in theory drog but if you accept that Sunderland are doomed and West Brom will get caught, you can say exactly the same about Boro, Pompey and Brum. One of them is going to go and Brum have two nightmare fixtures coming right up. If clubs like Newcastle, Villa or Fulham are to go down, 18th place will have over 40 points this season.

Looks like Sven is going to Germany with England- there's no fake sheikh part 3.

The Observer report rated Mokoena very highly. Danns was transferred and no forget about £14m to spend unless there is a very dramatic increase in gates. Something nobody has mentioned on this thread but which all the press has picked up on: - yesterday was a fantastic highly entertaining FA Cup tie - Reid was superb - Rovers more than held their own except for Zura having a bit of a 'mare. Hyslop pulled off two world class saves from Mokoena. I expect Mr Armchair will change his opinion when he's read the papers.